Its fish in a barrel time, but Corbyn seems to have had his International Conference. It doesn't look very exciting. As RB says: Did the meeting live up to its billing of "refuting, totally, the CO2 theory of warming"? Hardly. Because doing that seriously doesn't mean refuting it to my satisfaction, or yours, or that of the audience scattered about the Imperial College lecture theatre on Wednesday; it means convincing the greater community of climate scientists, and that brings us back to... publishing. What some in the sceptical camp do not appear to appreciate is that published, peer-reviewed science is not only the sole way of establishing and improving theories; it's also, now, the only route to the policymakers they want to influence. Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies.
Stoat
Taking science by the throat...
Profile
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
Search
Recent Posts
- Rip her to shreds
- Agreeing with Pielke, Sr
- Volcano from space
- Whom should I attack?
- What we learn from the APS revision
- Comments elsewhere
- Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear
- Revisionism with Romm
- India 'arrogant' to deny global warming link to melting glaciers?
- Yet more snarking
Recent Comments
- Nicolas Nierenberg on Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear
- Maurizio Morabito on Rip her to shreds
- Maurizio Morabito on Rip her to shreds
- Vinny Burgoo on Rip her to shreds
- MarkB on Rip her to shreds
- dhogaza on Rip her to shreds
- Maurizio Morabito on Rip her to shreds
- dhogaza on Rip her to shreds
- Maurizio Morabito on Rip her to shreds
- Adam on Rip her to shreds
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- Climate Feedback (Nature)
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- FPA: climate change
- Framing Science
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Reality Check
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« Oh no! More snarking | Main | Tiljander, again »
Corbyn again
Category: Piers
Posted on: November 3, 2009 4:42 PM, by William M. Connolley
Find more posts in: 
Environment
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/123945
Comments
This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the denialists, which is probably why they've been putting some effort into demeaning peer review.
Posted by: pough | November 3, 2009 5:54 PM
"it's also, now, the only route to the policymakers they want to influence. Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies."
Not sure how things are done in the U.K. (the contrarians appear to be of the same variety, engaging in the same silly arguments and conspiracy theories), but policymakers in the U.S. are often influenced by lobbyist money and to some smaller extent, public opinion, which is what the "skeptic" conferences are intended to influence. That public includes policymakers. U.S. Republican Congresspersons, on the whole, indicate a fair amount of skeptism in polls.
And now a nice summary of the contrarian agenda from the article:
"We are involved in the political debate about climate change," he told me. "The whole regime is suspect and has to be destroyed."
Quite different from the goal of an actual scientist.
Posted by: MarkB | November 3, 2009 7:34 PM
RB: Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies
Oh, the irony of seeing that published the very same day a UK minister dismissed an "independent" scientific adviser that had the temerity of talking in public about published theories...
I'd spend less time dismissing Corbyn and more time worrying about what happens of any science that appears to be contrary to, of in favor of a Government's agenda.
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | November 4, 2009 1:56 AM
You don’t need to publish something that is so obvious to everyone, but true believers. The globe has started its cooling phase since 1998. For 1998 it was 0.53 deg C, and 0.33 deg C for 2008.
[Yes yes, jolly good. Cut. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/ -W]
Posted by: Girma | November 4, 2009 8:18 AM
And to think I once tried to have an intellectual debate with Girma...So, to counter Girma, I'll baffle him with his own type of data analysis: we've entered a warm phase again, as anyone can see. Compared to 2008, 2009 is currently running at +0.2 degrees (GISTEMP). Woha! 0.2 degrees in 1 year, that's 2 degrees in 10 years, is TWENTY degrees in a century!
Posted by: Marco | November 4, 2009 10:07 AM
Can't wait to see what the Girmas of the world do if the El Nino pushes 2010 yet higher.
Why is it that the deniers live and die by month-month data? I see this on WUWT - like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/hadcrut-watch/
MarkB: In the US, individual Senators have more influence on legislation than backbenchers in the UK Parliament.
Posted by: carrot eater | November 4, 2009 10:48 AM
"Why is it that the deniers live and die by month-month data? "
Same reason they focus on finding cold weather events somewhere in the world. Selectively focusing on short-term trends allows for obfuscation.
Posted by: MarkB | November 4, 2009 12:15 PM
It's quite ironic to see MarkB's comment about focusing on local weather almost immediately followed by Girma...referring to local weather.
Posted by: Marco | November 5, 2009 3:38 AM
Am I allowed to post here?
[Same rules as for anyone else. If you have anything interesting and relevant to say, yes. Interesting but irrelevant, maybe. Neither, no. Repeating previous: probably not -W]
Posted by: Girma | November 5, 2009 9:05 AM
Predictions of Cold & Warm World
From the above chart, we see:
Warm world around 1880
Cold world around 1910 (after 30 years)
Warm world around 1940 (after 30 years)
Cold world around 1970 (after 30 years)
Warm world around 2000 (after 30 years)
Prediction:
Cold world around 2030 (after 30 years)
Evidence of previous cold and warm world in the media.
[As Marco points out, your prediction above is worthless, because you've de-trended the data. Obviously if you want to use this to "predict" the future you'd need to add the trend back in. Possibly you're trying to say that there is a natural 30-year cycle which modulates the larger increasing global warming trend? That would be defensible, though probably wrong -W]
Posted by: Girma | November 6, 2009 6:01 AM
Girma, you've been informed MANY times that you are looking at de-trended data...
[Oh yes you're right - sorry, didn't notice that when I let the comment through -W]
Posted by: Marco | November 6, 2009 7:53 AM